Cited by 2,996Species Distribution and Climate ChangeEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: Implications for background and pseudo-absence data

Open access
Phillips, Steven J., Dudík, Miroslav, Elith, Jane, Graham, Catherine H., Lehmann, Anthony, Leathwick, John, Ferrier, Simon·2009·Ecological Applications

Abstract

Most methods for modeling species distributions from occurrence records require additional data representing the range of environmental conditions in the modeled region. These data, called background or pseudo‐absence data, are usually drawn at random from the entire region, whereas occurrence collection is often spatially biased toward easily accessed areas. Since the spatial bias generally results in environmental bias, the difference between occurrence collection and background sampling may lead to inaccurate models. To correct the estimation, we propose choosing background data with the same bias as occurrence data. We investigate theoretical and practical implications of this approach. Accurate information about spatial bias is usually lacking, so explicit biased sampling of background sites may not be possible. However, it is likely that an entire target group of species observed by similar methods will share similar bias. We therefore explore the use of all occurrences within a target group as biased background data. We compare model performance using target‐group background and randomly sampled background on a comprehensive collection of data for 226 species from diverse regions of the world. We find that target‐group background improves average performance for all the modeling methods we consider, with the choice of background data having as large an effect on predictive performance as the choice of modeling method. The performance improvement due to target‐group background is greatest when there is strong bias in the target‐group presence records. Our approach applies to regression‐based modeling methods that have been adapted for use with occurrence data, such as generalized linear or additive models and boosted regression trees, and to Maxent, a probability density estimation method. We argue that increased awareness of the implications of spatial bias in surveys, and possible modeling remedies, will substantially improve predictions of species distributions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/07-2153.1

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Occurrence data from collected or downloaded sources have inherent bias that decreases the overall accuracy of SDMs.

    “The package then takes and manipulates the occurrence data and employs a series of measures to mitigate the inherent bias, typical of collected or downloaded occurrence data (Phillips et al., 2009; Boakes et al., 2010) and which decreases the overall accuracy of SDMs (Phillips et al., 2009; Beck et al., 2013; Varela et al., 2014).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M., Elith, J., Graham, C. H., Lehmann, A., Leathwick, J., & Ferrier, S.
Affiliations
  • AT&T (United States) (US)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NZ)
Corresponding author
Phillips, Steven J.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
181-197
ISSN
  • 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5582
OpenAlex
W2119202692
Cited by
2,996
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 246 · 2025: 223 · 2024: 219 · 2023: 242 · 2022: 251 · 2021: 262 · 2020: 220 · 2019: 190 · 2018: 169 · 2017: 184 · 2016: 140 · 2015: 142 · 2014: 140 · 2013: 144 · 2012: 95
FWCI
42.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecological Applications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Bird Studies Canada
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
sample selection bias, background information, species distribution modeling, MaxEnt, boosted regression trees, generalized linear models, additive models, predictive performance
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, Computer Simulation, Demography, Environmental Monitoring, Mammals, Models, Biological, Ontario, Plants, Reptiles, Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review